Is this OpenAI catching up with Anthropic artifacts? At the same time they say "We’ve trained GPT‑6 to compose responses using text, visuals and interactive elements...", rather than a harness.
AFAIK, they already had a simpler form of this. It was kind of an obvious next step. Now connect it up to tools so that we can again comfortably do the things that are more precise by hand!
Given the extreme short time between 6 Sol and 6.1 Sol, I suspect they don’t actually have much in common and 6.1 is a heavier model rebranded as Sol in a panic response to poor agentic capabilities of 6.
I suspect that 6 sol was a better version of 5.6 terra (and note that in the 6 sol and luna release, they took out terra, and price 6 sol at 5.6 terra pricing), then the backlash from lesser capabilities made them roll out 6.1 sol as the actual 5.6 sol - size modee.
6.1 is Astra minor. Way more capable but also way heavier+slower. Its really 2 different models, they just shipped it as sol to recover from the gpt6 disaster lunch, where they tried to pass terra 6(or a cheaper model) as sol but it was worse than expected
gpt-6.1-sol was released 7 days after gpt-6-sol only because they were bleeding to fable-5.1/opus-5.5 from Anthropic. It was a desperation move and certainly ate into their margins massively. Since their margins on gpt-6.1-sol are much slimmer than on gpt-6-sol they have to use it somehow to preserve compute and make profit. Frankly I think OpenAI is a mess and is playing catch-up with Anthropic… I don’t know how they will recover.
I'm also building something similar for an internal project, based on the vercel's json-render design. It hasn't been too challenging, especially since the release of faster models like 5.6 Luna.
This looks bad, I want the output to be as much as text based so I can easily export it and further processing it, plus, this might make the resource-eating app even worse.
Visuals are better for consumers/general public, when the use case is "help me cook X meal", or "where can I stop by to buy gas on the way to San Jose".
Rading most comments, people don't seem to be very impressed by it, I ain't either tbh - its not something mind-blowing (I have been doing this with Astra myself just by writing better prompts to make explainer interactive interfaces), but I do think its a good first step towards a better way of consuming information/answers than just reading text-vomits. I wonder if there is a way to train an LLM native to this kind of thing?
I think this is really a future, this is the product that I really expected to become reality at some point. If we assume agents become even more common in the future, then I don't think we would really have a lot of modern software. Most of it is really is not needed at all.
Most apps that people use are really very similar and don't have anything original. It would make more sense for it to be more personalized. For example someone might prefer not to interact with interface at all, and just access services just by chatting with a bot, while other person might want only last steps to be provided as UI. For example to see summary of his cart before paying. While another person might be insterested in just browsing all options. Some might prefer to have filters, while other would want AI to filter everything for them.
I think the real result would be when all services would be automated by AI. Like if you want to be a small business, you no longer need to build anything. You just describe what real life services can you provide: delivery, barber, baker, cleaning, repair. Then all of that would be in some agent network, and available to other agents as an option. While humans on both sides would just get a bridge between them in whatever form is most comfortable for them. Buyer might get a list of bakeries as normal ecommerce website, while the baker might just be someone who receives phone calls explaining him what his next order is in human voice.
In the video, they showed examples of ChatGPT making interactive tutorials on how to fold origami, how to arrange colours/interior and how to assemble a bike.
Supposedly, people were struggling to follow written manuals and they needed an interactive explanations.
I'm not a mathematician and I would certainly love having a tool that would do ELI5 on some complex stuff, but I'm really worrying about using this too often and outsourcing my ability to do stuff to some mega corp.
It makes sense they’re doing this - I’ve noticed lately when asking a more complex question involving a lot of nonlinear data using Codex work mode, Astra and Sol will write a fully html document to better display the info with a Cliff’s Notes version in chat.
I made a prediction last year that there'd be a new UI protocol (like HTML) but for agents. I believe that custom or personalised UI's are going to be the new browser interface. More radically, I think browsers can be completely replaced. My news feed can be personalised to me, based on what AI thinks might be important from all sources like Reddit, X, HN.
Which brings up a different problem: personalized reading UI, personalized writing UI, how are those services going to pay their bills? Maybe they can sell access to their APIs but who's really going to buy that? Those services will die and will be replaced by some other service that will be born to serve those people.
Or, more probably IMHO, most people will keep using the standard UIs because they are ready and they need no work to build.
So they are going to replace all the banking, utility, social media, news, gaming, streaming, government, work apps and other important websites people still rely on? Those companies and organizations are just going to provide an API to the chatbots?
How do sites like Wikipedia get updated? What if I need to upload important documents to different portals? It all has to go through the AI companies? They have access to medical records too? My taxes, social security, etc?
Is this how Microsoft imagines Office 365 and Sharepoint will be merged into? Disney, NY Times, Youtube, Netflix will all be fine with chatbots handling their content?
They're making the point—apparently too subtly—that text alone is a highly limiting "UI" for many tasks. So it's great that GPT-6 can now communicate in a a richer interactive medium.
Is it me or GPT-6 Instant food answer gives the vibe to check the hell out immediately? It's like the it will start to explain a sunny Sunday afternoon from 20 years ago for 5 full pages.
The point, I think, is to make fun of Anthropic models, which answer only in text when you ask them how to do something. They’re the competition, not paper pamphlets.
I've had the most success with GPT explaining things to me by making it take a few sentences at a time back and forth, instead of reading full write-ups of whatever I asked. It also often poisons the conversation if it misunderstood some part of the question, and I can lead it better by continuously questioning its statements. It's also more engaging that way.
I've been learning music lately and it kept re-pasting the same one chord visualization throughout many conversations, almost randomly and often barely related to the question. So I at least hope this won't be as aggressive so I can prompt it away!
Id love to learn what prompts you’re using to do that. Explanations one at a time. Thats something I’ve thought would be helpful before but didn’t know how to achieve it.
One of the things that I learned the hard way is to not to combine requests, but fork chats _a lot_ and ask singular questions. Also start new sessions with either explicitly created handovers or even just explaining current state. The more compactions I see the less and less trust I have in it’s current understanding of what we’re discussing
Nothing fancy. What works for me is trying to lead the conversation: asking for definitions one at a time, asking how they differ from its previous answers and pointing it out when it conflates its own answer. I generally feel like you can't let it dictate the pace, it's not very good at that yet.
I used to edit my prompts and undo messages if it misunderstood something but that's been failing me recently.
For me this works: "One thing at the time. This is a conversation, not a lecture, try to balance the amount of words you write versus the amount of words that I write. Don't overwhelm me with 10 pages of prose where a single sentence would suffice, brevity is a virtue, not a defect." I've had to tweak it a couple of times, probably because of different versions of ChatGPT but it is usually a variation on this that will do the trick. Besides being far more interactive it takes the frustration down quite a bit.
It slows down to the point I find it unusable so I ask it to summarize as one cut-and-pastable block, copy the block, open a new session and kill the old one. This usually happens after a few hours, probably because 'thinking tokens' even if they are not displayed crowd the context window.
yes the eyebrow is the tell. I never knew anything about eyebrows in design as I am not a designer. Now they are everywhere. Everything has an eyebrow. It is ridiculous but at least it is an AI smoking gun.
I loved them and I placed them a lot in my designs — if you also include my love for em dashes you can well understand that I feel my own character has become a clanker…
Em dashes got taken from me as a result of Chat. I used them all the time now I can't without it making people pause to think I'm a bot. Still a bit annoyed or sad about that tbh.
I had to look this concept up. Seems to me like you could just as easily fit the "eyebrow" words into the main headline with a colon and a bit of ingenuity. But then, that runs the same risk of getting repetitive and AI-tell-ish.
Of everything that could be automated, Bartosz Ciechanowski really was the last on my list.
In all seriousness, his lovingly and expertly crafted explainers are still going to age like a handcrafted heirloom clock in a world of plastic-clad quartz movements. But it’s absolutely incredible that we are now in an age where a computer can manufacture a serviceable interactive explainer on whatever niche topic you desire.
funny if true. ironically just last week i was asking chatgpt about what happened to him and why there were no new blog posts for almost 2 years and it had no idea
Nothing in that "7‑Speed Bicycle" is specific to having 7 speeds. It might as well have said "Bicycle", and even then you get meaningless slop "Made to keep rolling" and "A strong foundation". How can you compare this to Ciechanowski?
You call it serviceable, but what purpose does this service? What do you now know about 7-speed bicycles that you didn't know before?
Yep. I hate everything about this. Just pure slop. Fancy visuals that mean nothing. Text that sounds impressive but has no purpose in educating the reader even though it's supposed to be "an interactive explainer". Just slop, slop, slop.
AI bros will copy anything that's even mildly successful. They're like a teenager trying to impress their girlfriend (or their mom!) by saying "see! I can do it too!"
I read the comments here and I am really surprised by many people. One picture is worth a thousand words so with better UI you can make much better user experiences. This unlocks personal assistants to be better adopted by elderly or disabled people. I see so many benefits of it and having models which can do this (if they can do it constantly with good quality) is amazing. Much better products - I am really tired of dumb chatbot - if I can do something with one button or view the whole information in one diagram/image, this is amazing.
I find the Sunday roast comparison of 5.6 vs 6 very interesting. I have no doubt most people will prefer 6, yet I am almost repulsed by all the images, so much needless whitespace, checklist and so on. Feels like I'm being condescended to and treated like a child.
Given that OpenAI is making noises about merging work with chat (a horrible idea imo), and Work is very similar to Codex... I dearly hope things like these won't have any meaningful cross-polination into the actual work tools.
Seeing that the chat is based on 6.0 and not 6.1 is disappointing, too. The "Visual and interactive explanations" seems genuinely useful, but 6.1 is just so much better. I wouldn't truly trust the 6.1 with the explanations either, but I'd trust them a fair bit more than 6.0. I understand that compute isn't infinite, but tons of people only interact with the chat and having your "things-explainer" be as good as it can be is important.
It's insane how hard OAI is choking, they had much better models than A/ who were fumbling this year to date... then blunder after blunder.
The only things that OAI still have over A/ are better coding agent GUI, no 5hr limit on >$100, much more reasonable cybersec guardrails (that allow most RE work) and... that's it.
I am curious: Why is it bad to merge chat and work? In Claude I didn't have a porblem with it (although I switched to an OpenAI subscription shortly after they made the merge). Isn't the model capable of deciding if it needs the extra capabilities of Work?
Pro messages is like 50 per week for pro 100 and 200 for pro 200.
Regular chat, even on extra high thinking mode, is sort of unlimited. Idk at what point you hit the abuse gaurdrail but its really high whatever it is.
For a company with Open in the name, OpenAI is very opaque about things, there are all kinds of limits and quotas that randomly come and go, but they only show you the meters for a couple.
E.g. codex reviews come from codex quota but also has its separate quota they don’t tell you about. Same with security reviews which has another quota still.
So the chat messages can be sent at several effort levels and from various models including 5.6 and 6 pro. The 6 pro messages are limited and they don’t tell you how many you’ve sent or how many are left. But the 5.6 messages seem to be unlimited, however there could just be a much higher unstated quota.
Which is probably why they will merge it. You can get a lot done in chat mode, especially if you connect custom MCPs to it. I can't see that continuing.
I don't like either. I'd want a recipe that could fit on a single page with type. Recipes you find on Google actively hide the ingredient list and simple procedures to get more of the user's time to monetize but I don't know why ChatGPT needs to be verbose here. Recipes are simple things. Simple search solved find recipes back in the early 2000s and it's prime example of a thing people have been enshitifying since there's not much to really give people beyond the formula. And sure, every entrepreneur screams "they think they want a formula but really they want an experience" but, no I don't.
Yeah it reminds me of one those obnoxious recipe/biography websites that is the laughingstock of the internet. Why would I possibly want an AI image of a imaginary roast once I'm already at the recipe stage?
Kinda just feels like google search results in AI, which imo is a step down from distilled information. Chatgpt is already able to generate charts and visuals upon request.
"My old grand-pappy, GPT-1, used to wax nostalgic about this roast recipe when my subagent would discuss meat recipes with him inside his little 4GB GPU."
I've heard of other people for years now trusting AI for recipes, and it's a rare area that I simply can't bring myself to take seriously.
I feel like it can only be successful by luck. Either it's reproducing a recipe verbatim that was tried and validated and tasted by a human, in which case, we didn't need AI for that, just a searchable cookbook. Or, it's making one up. I understand that using RLHF has helped improve the quality of questions about history, programming, or TV show recommendations, but I do not believe that there has been some kind of training regime where people prompt the models for "a recipe that uses X, Y, Z random ingredients," follow the recipe, and then score it. And even if they do, I don't see how a model can learn enough from that besides "this exact recipe is good/bad." '1/2 tsp cumin' may be a great addition to one recipe and not enough for another, so improving the output based on a bunch of scored recipes... I just don't believe cooking is an LLM job.
Maybe some other kind of model that I don't know about.
I've had some really good experiences with cocktail recipes and Claude. It's got access to my barcart inventory, general tastes, and general desired level of effort.
I feel like the technique recommendations are probably the most valuable element, but I'm getting rave reviews like 85% of the time now?
There have been a couple times where I was out of an ingredient and it proposed an adjustment that sounded a little wild to me, but it almost always is well received.
You're right, we don't need AI for that, we need a searchable cookbook.
Unfortunately, one does not exist.
The Internet, however, is full of garbage cooking advice, and while AI is quite happy to parrot that garbage, it's not significantly worse than it's sources.
I do that, but I've found more success with using internet recipes as a starting point. The general-purpose cookbooks are, at best, another data point, or an explanation for something glossed over by other recipes. Ar worst, they kind of suck.
And we aren't talking about something esoteric. How To Cook Everything. (4.5 rating on Amazon, 4.0 on Goodreads), one of the most popular cookbooks in the world...
Has its first recipe for chicken cutlets produce undercooked chicken (15 minutes at 325F has not resulted in 165F internally).
Worse yet, its chile recipe for some weird reason involves boiling and simmering an onion with the beans before throwing it out (WTF). It then has you drain the beans only to add that drained water right back (WTF?), unless you optionally replace it with tap water (WTF was the point of boiling the onion then?), so that you could bring them to boil again. The recipe barely has any spices besides actual chile peppers.
This... Is not good or helpful, but is incredibly opinionated with a bunch of bullshit steps.
Once again, Grandma had it right. The Fanny Farmer or Betty Crocker cookbook with dozens of little papers slipped in it and/or marginal notes everywhere is the way.
I wanted to correct you and bring up my favorite website that had filters for the ingredients you want/don't want to use, type of dish, and time for cooking, but it appears that in a last month it was sold and now it links to the slop site with no useful filtering. I used this site as a quick lookup for recipe ideas for 7 years now.
Fuck. Does nothing good survive on the internet anymore.
LLMs for recipes are good if you just want to make a thing, not necessarily the best version of that thing. It's nice being able to ask questions about certain steps as well, or ingredient substitutions if needed. It'll make a nice, average, recipe (unless I suppose you prompt for something). That's perfectly fine for most cooking, and often what you want when you're making a dish for the first time.
It also doesn't really like tell you how to actually cook anything. Good or even just decent recipes tend to tell you the temperatures, times, techniques and orders of ingredients to do things for the best results. Unless I'm missing it this is just really broad strokes. But I guess the goal in engagement so they want you to ask a lot more questions to actually figure anything out.
Holy shit. I read this on mobile so didn’t actually see the recipe part because you have to scroll way down to see it. It is awful! The shopping list makes no sense and the recipe instructions literally have an “Everything else” item. Yikes…
For me, the text-only recipes I already get out of ChatGPT today are good enough
You’ve illustrated something about use of AI that really bothers me. The lack of discernment by its users. Sure, the pictures and diagrams are impressive, but did you actually read and evaluate the output?
Genuine question - do they? Unless it's something like a fancy cake then instructions should really tell you everything about stacking. Half the recipes are mixed anyway (curry, stir fry, stews, ...), lots of other are either stacked or separated on the plate. So apart from the really exceptional stuff, to people really need to know "what you shoot for"?
Maybe, but it's a reality that most of the general public do prefer cookbooks with pictures. I suspect openai would end up doing this anyway just by targeting the general consumer. It's configurable.
What’s interesting is how those that over index themselves often miss the obvious which could simply be some things (cook books) are quite helpful with picture. If I am flipping through the cookbook, how would I know what Boeuf Bourguignon is and what good looks like.
Yes, pictures OF THE FOOD. Not unrelated pictures of another lamb-roast made with another recipe.
Good cookbooks do proper food photography, of the food made with the recipe. That's what sets them apart from slop, be it human or AI slop, cook books.
Why is it impossible to create? Are we talking about some meal that King Richard I had (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forme_of_Cury is the oldest cookbook I'm aware of which covers meals Richard II would have eaten), and thus we can only guess? Are we talking about the long extinct dodo bird (I'm not sure if humans ate them), cave bear (I've seen it claimed humans hunted them to extinction, but better sources say it went extinct before humans), or something else that we can never make?
For almost everything else we can create them - just give a reasonable cook a kitchen and the ingredients and they will do it. For a picture we then have an artist do preparation to make it look good, but they should always start with the real dish.
I've got visions of The Truman Show. In the middle of my question about vacation ideas ...
GPT: "Why don't you let me fix you some of this new Mococoa Drink? All-natural cocoa beans from the upper slopes of Mount Nicaragua. No artificial sweeteners!"
That's pretty much the Gemini experience right now. It is unusable the funniest bit is that the LLM is not in on the joke so it will act like it never happened...
I'm not saying anything, because I've never seen or heard of your experience. I'm only reporting mine. I'm not on the free tier, maybe that matters ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What scares me is that we're already half-way to Idiocracy world, except instead of "it has electrolites" we have "it's organic" and "it's not ultra-processed food".
I don't trust modern fertilizers and pesticides blindly, but I have never successfully digested any inorganic food. The 'organic' label is an old idiocratic choice.
I don't trust organic fertilizers and pesticides blindly. At least for the "chemicals" we do studies, often organic gets by with we have always used them even though a quick glance at the SDS (if there is one, otherwise just the ingredients) suggests it is even worse but nobody studies the safety.
<< I spent years dumbing things down and creating visuals to support it for decision maker
And that is a problem. I am not guiltless ( I am working one such abomination now! ). The dumbing down of everything has to stop somewhere. Just because my boss thinks hiss bosses are retards does not mean I have to endure simplified muse where I can't change much.. I get that normal people like it. Fuck em. They are making their choice.
There is plenty wrong as we use more and more complex machines with less and less access under the hood without crowbar or a super secret handshake. The amusing part is that it is bound to change now -- just not for the reasons I like.
Unfortunately they're making a choice for all of us, because tech companies only ever cater to the majority user.
So now the generation that grew up on IMs, whose standards of communication is "lol ok thx" and "i cannot read sentence with commas in it", are having difficulty with reading Claude, and in response, Anthropic is reducing their models' communications skills to match.
Realistically, if the market caters to the lowest common denominator, then we either need to adjust that denominator ( unlikely -- people don't really change ), adjust the market ( hard, but not impossible ) or adjust ourselves ( easiest, but possibly not useful for things other than putting along ).
I am not exactly the person to normally to argue along the lines of 'build your own ISP/network/platform/model/we', but it will still be easier than fighting against collective nature of society.
What is absolutely crazy to me is that llms allow an insane way to accumulate knowledge and maybe even some skills - though ai doomers/boosters will argue over what that actually means -- and people's apparent response is:
Ultimately the general public finds itself in the position where they’re going to find a life where: they have no control over it but it is reasonably enjoyable provided that you don’t want anything outside of what is provided by the corporate free service tier.
The problem with Claudish isn't that it's technically poor English, the problem is that it's information-sparse waffle most of the time. It's like dealing with a colleague who needs several paragraphs of tedious preamble to make a point when you just want them to spit it out and be done with it. It also does a great deal of vague gesturing at thoughts without actually instantiating them directly, for example by using the same tired metaphors to the point they don't actually convey a thought any more.
If I say Claude talks like a meringue it's patently obvious what I'm trying to convey, sweet but full of empty space. If you hear that same metaphor day-in day-out then after a while it doesn't call up a thought at all, it's just an annoying verbal habit.
My go to phrase that I’ve found to work well is “please restate in high school English with direct declarative sentences and no parentheticals or references that require recalling previous turns of this conversation”
That scene took me out of the movie completely. The head of an investment bank with decades of experience needs a highly-leveraged tranched-bond structure explained like he has no idea what it is?
I know it was done for the audience’s benefit, but it could have just been explained at the same level without that character claiming he needed it simplified.
> ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English (STE) is a controlled natural language that is designed to simplify and clarify technical documentation. It was originally developed in the 1980s by the European Association of Aerospace Industries (AECMA) at the request of the European airline industry, which wanted a standardized form of English for aircraft maintenance documentation that could be easily understood by non-native English-speakers.
STE is very hyped for AI but has its own smells. It's designed for aircraft maintenance manuals, not software - the two don't share the same vocabulary used to "simply" describe something. I've had a coworker try and "simplify" our documentation with Claude applying STE and the results were equally appalling to read as the Claude-ism laden docs that came before, despite the reading level metrics going down on paper.
I've taken a liking to pointing agents at the Simple English Wikipedia editorial guidelines...but so much of that is for making up for shortcomings of modern Anthropic models. Codex running 6.1-sol explains things so much more clearly that I don't feel I need to assert a style guide on its output.
Gemini 3.8 for me always outputs in a concise way at the level understandable for any computer science masters graduate. Clear, to the point, a bit of formula for background when really required instead of the same formula in Prose, etc.
- Gemini 3.8 has a beautiful answer. Typography, use of lists, brevity, style, even the font choice on the web harness -- all of it is A tier or even S tier. Notice I didn't say answer quality. The answer is always extremely mid, and the harder the question (or more effort needed to answer it), Google just quits. I give it a "C" on answer quality
- ChatGPT (Chat, pre 6, I assume 5.6 although they commonly hide the model picker): Ugly answer. Runs on printing page after page of unnecessary side notes. Mostly just walls of texts in paragraphs with little thought to information design. However, inside of that mess of text is almost always the answer I'm looking for, and it's almost always incredibly better than the truncated, desgined Gemini answer.
For a while I ran all of my question queries on Gemini and ChatGPT, but I noticed that I basically always picked ChatGPT's answer head to head.
Interesting that this hasn’t been my experience. ChatGPT has often gave me with pages of text dripping with confidence about a solution for my problem. Diving very quickly into implementation details. Even if I tell it to stay in the problem and product fit level.
Gemini on the other hand somehow always outputs at the level that I am expecting and reasoning.
I even found it was capable of stepping back from code implementation and bug hunting to “hang on, it’s not the algorithm that is incorrectly implemented, it is the wrong algorithm for the goal.” GPT Sol (5.6,6 and 6.1) just kept hammering in the problem.
To be clear, I'm discussing non-technical use of Gemini and ChatGPT through the web harness.
While I do rarely use the web harnesses for technical research, nearly all of my technical questions are going through coding harnesses and layers of my local context, skills, etc, so what I produce from codex/claude code is not comparable to what others produce.
So my comparison of the models is like asking questions about caring for my baby or product comparisons of new televisions, or visualizing a room organized differently (google sucked at this so bad, chatgpt did great), or asking for help in a video game, or other normie AI uses lol
I was about to comment the same thing. Why is a picture of a roast helpful in that moment? The user asked for a plan to prepare a meal. They need a list of ingredients not an image.
But the image isn't a photo of the result. It's an unrelated image that vaguely looks like what you could make, with a different recipe, and with some skill.
The main pic looks like a classic British leg of lamb. So what’s your point? Why post such low quality slop?
As I said I can see the value in this similar to Pinterest boards. It is directionally correct and serves most of the value that a picture does. No perfect but probably close enough for the general audience.
And you see this in the other examples too. The teach the CLT piece was funny. It's and error-ridden mess that isn't even an explanation at all!
The best part is, someone looked at that and thought yes, that's right. Shows you clearly why programmers will be needed in the future. The LLM might be able to run circles around that person in math, but that person also has no idea when they're being bullshitted.
The fact we've come so far with textual models & the image stuff is still producing stuff that harks back to early-stage tripophobic AI produce (the garlic with roast potatoes here) is interesting.
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly starting to see some AI-produced imagery today that I can't tell isn't real, but that's largely because a lot of real photography is overproduced & ugly. I have yet to see anything that isn't repulsive.
I've been calling this "disposable UI" or "paper plate UI", eg something meant to be used once. One thing I'll be curious about is overzealousness to produce this, when sometimes what you want is just a simple response. Overall though I'm a big fan of it, if it can be provided fast enough. I'd be curious on how much impact it has on latency of a response.
I one-shotted a 3D application with Codex (Sol 6.1 Medium) to visualize some output we're working on in a niche format for a customer meeting today. It was easier than generating a couple slides and added all this functionality without asking that provided a lot of value, probably based on it's knowledge of related conversations. Took about 15 minutes. I made coffee while I waited. I'll likely never use it again.
I'm GenX, I thought the internet and smart phones were a big deal when they came about, but this is bonkers.
That's my biggest gripe with it. If I ask a quick throwaway question, I'd really rather not wait for the LLM to build a test framework for its composable principles-driven components framework and WebGL/WebGPU abstraction first.
441 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 67.2 ms ] threadMost apps that people use are really very similar and don't have anything original. It would make more sense for it to be more personalized. For example someone might prefer not to interact with interface at all, and just access services just by chatting with a bot, while other person might want only last steps to be provided as UI. For example to see summary of his cart before paying. While another person might be insterested in just browsing all options. Some might prefer to have filters, while other would want AI to filter everything for them.
I think the real result would be when all services would be automated by AI. Like if you want to be a small business, you no longer need to build anything. You just describe what real life services can you provide: delivery, barber, baker, cleaning, repair. Then all of that would be in some agent network, and available to other agents as an option. While humans on both sides would just get a bridge between them in whatever form is most comfortable for them. Buyer might get a list of bakeries as normal ecommerce website, while the baker might just be someone who receives phone calls explaining him what his next order is in human voice.
Supposedly, people were struggling to follow written manuals and they needed an interactive explanations.
I'm not a mathematician and I would certainly love having a tool that would do ELI5 on some complex stuff, but I'm really worrying about using this too often and outsourcing my ability to do stuff to some mega corp.
Now they extracted the value from interoperable open systems, they would love to replace it with closed proprietary systems.
Or, more probably IMHO, most people will keep using the standard UIs because they are ready and they need no work to build.
yes you and everyone else.
How do sites like Wikipedia get updated? What if I need to upload important documents to different portals? It all has to go through the AI companies? They have access to medical records too? My taxes, social security, etc?
Is this how Microsoft imagines Office 365 and Sharepoint will be merged into? Disney, NY Times, Youtube, Netflix will all be fine with chatbots handling their content?
Like I said, it’s too subtle a deliberate self-own.
why not just stream html?
I've been learning music lately and it kept re-pasting the same one chord visualization throughout many conversations, almost randomly and often barely related to the question. So I at least hope this won't be as aggressive so I can prompt it away!
I used to edit my prompts and undo messages if it misunderstood something but that's been failing me recently.
"Here is a library of [svelte/react/whatever] components, use them to construct a helpful visual to demonstrate your point."
The deconstructed bike at the beginning was in a class of its own, however.
I have explicit instructions to tone it down. Less taglines, eyebrow text, subheadings, decorative spacing, pills, cards.
Hopefully this doesn't bleed into the chat...
And now we are asking LLMs to solve it.
In all seriousness, his lovingly and expertly crafted explainers are still going to age like a handcrafted heirloom clock in a world of plastic-clad quartz movements. But it’s absolutely incredible that we are now in an age where a computer can manufacture a serviceable interactive explainer on whatever niche topic you desire.
You call it serviceable, but what purpose does this service? What do you now know about 7-speed bicycles that you didn't know before?
Amazing work. Always excited for the next update. This was a human driven and created success.
Given that OpenAI is making noises about merging work with chat (a horrible idea imo), and Work is very similar to Codex... I dearly hope things like these won't have any meaningful cross-polination into the actual work tools.
Seeing that the chat is based on 6.0 and not 6.1 is disappointing, too. The "Visual and interactive explanations" seems genuinely useful, but 6.1 is just so much better. I wouldn't truly trust the 6.1 with the explanations either, but I'd trust them a fair bit more than 6.0. I understand that compute isn't infinite, but tons of people only interact with the chat and having your "things-explainer" be as good as it can be is important.
Prepare to lose essentially unlimited chat mode.
I imagine many will move to claude, as I will (return), unless anthropic makes more blunders.
Random link I found looking for the twitter post
https://pasqualepillitteri.it/en/news/21024/openai-merge-cha...
The only things that OAI still have over A/ are better coding agent GUI, no 5hr limit on >$100, much more reasonable cybersec guardrails (that allow most RE work) and... that's it.
The rest is basically unlimited unless you're doing something very weird.
Meanwhile I cant ask a simple question to Claude, not even to Haiku, because I used my claude code 5h limit.
Regular chat, even on extra high thinking mode, is sort of unlimited. Idk at what point you hit the abuse gaurdrail but its really high whatever it is.
E.g. codex reviews come from codex quota but also has its separate quota they don’t tell you about. Same with security reviews which has another quota still.
So the chat messages can be sent at several effort levels and from various models including 5.6 and 6 pro. The 6 pro messages are limited and they don’t tell you how many you’ve sent or how many are left. But the 5.6 messages seem to be unlimited, however there could just be a much higher unstated quota.
Kinda just feels like google search results in AI, which imo is a step down from distilled information. Chatgpt is already able to generate charts and visuals upon request.
That's never, ever the case with the AI generated ones and makes them useless.
Curious why that feels condescending? Like, the average person who is seeking a recipe needs a photo to know what to shoot for
The menu: Rosemary and garlic roast lamb, Extra-crispy roast potatoes, Honey-roasted carrots and parsnips, broccoli.
The photo: [1] Roast turkey, mashed potatoes, baby carrots, broccoli, brussels sprouts. No lamb, no parsnips.
Also I gotta make an apple crumble with no flour, no sugar, and no butter. Only apples, as they're the only thing on the shopping list.
[1] https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-4/gyzrX8zp3O2KLEPm0FAqh...
I feel like it can only be successful by luck. Either it's reproducing a recipe verbatim that was tried and validated and tasted by a human, in which case, we didn't need AI for that, just a searchable cookbook. Or, it's making one up. I understand that using RLHF has helped improve the quality of questions about history, programming, or TV show recommendations, but I do not believe that there has been some kind of training regime where people prompt the models for "a recipe that uses X, Y, Z random ingredients," follow the recipe, and then score it. And even if they do, I don't see how a model can learn enough from that besides "this exact recipe is good/bad." '1/2 tsp cumin' may be a great addition to one recipe and not enough for another, so improving the output based on a bunch of scored recipes... I just don't believe cooking is an LLM job.
Maybe some other kind of model that I don't know about.
I feel like the technique recommendations are probably the most valuable element, but I'm getting rave reviews like 85% of the time now?
There have been a couple times where I was out of an ingredient and it proposed an adjustment that sounded a little wild to me, but it almost always is well received.
Unfortunately, one does not exist.
The Internet, however, is full of garbage cooking advice, and while AI is quite happy to parrot that garbage, it's not significantly worse than it's sources.
The physical ones have indices, and the digital ones usually do as well (plus string search).
I often find their contents to be both incredibly broad, and incredibly shallow, and often lead to dishes that don't quite suit my tastes.
I have generally had more success with the internet than I have with them.
I usually just find recipes that are close to something I like and then modify them until I like them
I feel like cooking recipes should always be full of little notes from past attempts, to tweak them to your personal taste
And we aren't talking about something esoteric. How To Cook Everything. (4.5 rating on Amazon, 4.0 on Goodreads), one of the most popular cookbooks in the world...
Has its first recipe for chicken cutlets produce undercooked chicken (15 minutes at 325F has not resulted in 165F internally).
Worse yet, its chile recipe for some weird reason involves boiling and simmering an onion with the beans before throwing it out (WTF). It then has you drain the beans only to add that drained water right back (WTF?), unless you optionally replace it with tap water (WTF was the point of boiling the onion then?), so that you could bring them to boil again. The recipe barely has any spices besides actual chile peppers.
This... Is not good or helpful, but is incredibly opinionated with a bunch of bullshit steps.
Fuck. Does nothing good survive on the internet anymore.
For me, the text-only recipes I already get out of ChatGPT today are good enough
With an image of sour grapes
The user is probably in a grocery store. They need to buy the stuff first. Showing them a picture of a finished product is an irrelevant distraction.
Then, if there is some arguably relevant content you can tack it on afterwards.
“My made up scenario is definitely more realistic than your made up scenario.”
Who goes shopping for the meal before they even have a number of guests?
As a highly literate person, it is easy to overestimate the share of the population that is highly literate.
Yes, pictures OF THE FOOD. Not unrelated pictures of another lamb-roast made with another recipe.
Good cookbooks do proper food photography, of the food made with the recipe. That's what sets them apart from slop, be it human or AI slop, cook books.
For almost everything else we can create them - just give a reasonable cook a kitchen and the ingredients and they will do it. For a picture we then have an artist do preparation to make it look good, but they should always start with the real dish.
My most used prompt in the last week is probably "Explain this concisely and simply, like I am a child".
I spent years dumbing things down and creating visuals to support it for decision makers. I am frequently asking ChatGPT to do the same for me.
And that is a problem. I am not guiltless ( I am working one such abomination now! ). The dumbing down of everything has to stop somewhere. Just because my boss thinks hiss bosses are retards does not mean I have to endure simplified muse where I can't change much.. I get that normal people like it. Fuck em. They are making their choice.
For me, I try to spend as little time in QuickBooks as possible.
We make little abstractions of the world around us to help us navigate it. Nothing wrong with that.
There is plenty wrong as we use more and more complex machines with less and less access under the hood without crowbar or a super secret handshake. The amusing part is that it is bound to change now -- just not for the reasons I like.
So now the generation that grew up on IMs, whose standards of communication is "lol ok thx" and "i cannot read sentence with commas in it", are having difficulty with reading Claude, and in response, Anthropic is reducing their models' communications skills to match.
I am not exactly the person to normally to argue along the lines of 'build your own ISP/network/platform/model/we', but it will still be easier than fighting against collective nature of society.
What is absolutely crazy to me is that llms allow an insane way to accumulate knowledge and maybe even some skills - though ai doomers/boosters will argue over what that actually means -- and people's apparent response is:
can you make me think even less?
mine is “explain this 2 me in simple terms”
All those complaints about Claude language use make me think we're finally seeing the consequences of a generation growing up on instant messaging.
If I say Claude talks like a meringue it's patently obvious what I'm trying to convey, sweet but full of empty space. If you hear that same metaphor day-in day-out then after a while it doesn't call up a thought at all, it's just an annoying verbal habit.
The actually relevant information density is way too low.
My go to phrase that I’ve found to work well is “please restate in high school English with direct declarative sentences and no parentheticals or references that require recalling previous turns of this conversation”
Which I have as a hotkey.
Explain it to me like I'm a golden retriever.
https://youtu.be/fij_ixfjiZE?t=70
I know it was done for the audience’s benefit, but it could have just been explained at the same level without that character claiming he needed it simplified.
> ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English (STE) is a controlled natural language that is designed to simplify and clarify technical documentation. It was originally developed in the 1980s by the European Association of Aerospace Industries (AECMA) at the request of the European airline industry, which wanted a standardized form of English for aircraft maintenance documentation that could be easily understood by non-native English-speakers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Technical_English
I've taken a liking to pointing agents at the Simple English Wikipedia editorial guidelines...but so much of that is for making up for shortcomings of modern Anthropic models. Codex running 6.1-sol explains things so much more clearly that I don't feel I need to assert a style guide on its output.
GPT stays too much in text imho.
- Gemini 3.8 has a beautiful answer. Typography, use of lists, brevity, style, even the font choice on the web harness -- all of it is A tier or even S tier. Notice I didn't say answer quality. The answer is always extremely mid, and the harder the question (or more effort needed to answer it), Google just quits. I give it a "C" on answer quality
- ChatGPT (Chat, pre 6, I assume 5.6 although they commonly hide the model picker): Ugly answer. Runs on printing page after page of unnecessary side notes. Mostly just walls of texts in paragraphs with little thought to information design. However, inside of that mess of text is almost always the answer I'm looking for, and it's almost always incredibly better than the truncated, desgined Gemini answer.
For a while I ran all of my question queries on Gemini and ChatGPT, but I noticed that I basically always picked ChatGPT's answer head to head.
I even found it was capable of stepping back from code implementation and bug hunting to “hang on, it’s not the algorithm that is incorrectly implemented, it is the wrong algorithm for the goal.” GPT Sol (5.6,6 and 6.1) just kept hammering in the problem.
While I do rarely use the web harnesses for technical research, nearly all of my technical questions are going through coding harnesses and layers of my local context, skills, etc, so what I produce from codex/claude code is not comparable to what others produce.
So my comparison of the models is like asking questions about caring for my baby or product comparisons of new televisions, or visualizing a room organized differently (google sucked at this so bad, chatgpt did great), or asking for help in a video game, or other normie AI uses lol
That's a very high bar.
As I said I can see the value in this similar to Pinterest boards. It is directionally correct and serves most of the value that a picture does. No perfect but probably close enough for the general audience.
And you see this in the other examples too. The teach the CLT piece was funny. It's and error-ridden mess that isn't even an explanation at all!
The best part is, someone looked at that and thought yes, that's right. Shows you clearly why programmers will be needed in the future. The LLM might be able to run circles around that person in math, but that person also has no idea when they're being bullshitted.
Sometimes one needs a top comment like this to remind them how out of touch the average HN voter is.
The fact we've come so far with textual models & the image stuff is still producing stuff that harks back to early-stage tripophobic AI produce (the garlic with roast potatoes here) is interesting.
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly starting to see some AI-produced imagery today that I can't tell isn't real, but that's largely because a lot of real photography is overproduced & ugly. I have yet to see anything that isn't repulsive.
I'm GenX, I thought the internet and smart phones were a big deal when they came about, but this is bonkers.
That's my biggest gripe with it. If I ask a quick throwaway question, I'd really rather not wait for the LLM to build a test framework for its composable principles-driven components framework and WebGL/WebGPU abstraction first.
AI: compiling C code...